Slashdot Mirror
US Health Insurer Anthem Suffers Massive Data Breach
An anonymous reader writes Anthem, the second-largest health insurer in the United States, has suffered a data breach that may turn out to be the largest health care breach to date, as the compromised database holds records of some 80 million individuals. Not much is known about how the attack was discovered, how it unfolded and who might be behind it, but the breach has been confirmed by the company's CEO Joseph Swedish in a public statement, in which he says they were the victims of a "very sophisticated external cyber attack." The company has notified the FBI, and has hired Mandiant to evaluate their systems and identify solutions to secure them.
Swedish said the breach is extensive: the vulnerable data included "names, birthdays, medical IDs/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses and employment information, including income data," though "no credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes were targeted or compromised." (Also covered by Reuters.)
The hell you say! I'm sure all that money they saved not building an adequate infrastructure is much more than this breach will cost them. Oh, wait...
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Grind your axe somewhere else. You don't like the ACA? Write your congressman. Fuck off.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
So of the roughly 300 million people with SSNs, nearly a third of them are nearly compromised? Great.
What, you weren't buying medical insurance before Obamacare? I find that hard to believe...
When I see a new doctor, they always demand a SS# along with all of your personal information.
And when I tell them that I am uncomfortable with it, I always get a stern and rude demand. Any explanation of how insecure medical is - those people email and fax that information willy nilly - I get this "I'm full of shit look."
I hope those people get their identity stolen and their credit ruined so they can learn a lesson.
Sadly, in the absence of data protection laws which makes corporations liable for this, this will continue.
Unless companies carry a real cost for failing to secure this stuff, they'll continue to treat this as an afterthought.
But apparently forcing corporations to not be clueless and careless idiots would somehow be a bad thing.
Sorry, but if you need to have private information like that, you need to be accountable. If you aren't going to make companies accountable, don't allow them to have the data in the first place.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Not saying this to be a dick. Saying it because the way you come across right now is as someone who takes pride in stuffing jargon in the faces of others.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
It wont stop until we start arresting the CIO's for being complicit in the breaches. My 10-year-old kids get it - "it may not be your fault but its your responsibility" - so why do overpaid do-nothing executives get a free pass when they utterly fail at their job?
So, you've got a 100k of disposable income sitting around just in case you had to say in the hospital for a week? Well, good for you, but I don't want the likes of you setting public policy, you know.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Yes, the behavior is totally defensible because the other side does it as well.
Except, you know, not.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Its not just naked hypocrisy though. The situation is more like you have a gun on someone, who wants you to put it down; but you are like 99% certain the moment you do they are going to run over pick it up and point it at you.
Dems have use gerrymandering in the past, they would again if positioned to do so; or resort to some other dirty trick like trying to limit corporate donations while leaving the door open for unlimited union contributions. Or for that matter attaching a major heal care overhaul to the budget reconciliation process for the express cause of preventing the other side from having a floor vote or the opportunity to propose amendments they were sure would cause the legislation to fail.
No you can't expect one side to unilaterally disarm. It would be political suicide for those who are in it for the power, and needless surrender for those who are actually fighting for something on principle. The problem is our political system does not really allow for the creation of an enforceable bilateral agreement to "cut the crap" and actually behave democratically rather than seeing what you can get away with via process tricks and legal wrangling. In short there really is no solution until one side manages to suppress the other entirely (where we all lose).
The real question is can the DNC run out the clock until such time the GOP demographically can't win; or with GOP first succeed in sufficiently controlling participation and eligibility such that it won't matter. I am pretty pessimistic that the idea of "government by and for the people" has much chance for survival. So I say choose your sides folks, you can have the socialist boot in your face, or the fascist boot up your ass, its mostly likely going to be one or the other.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yes, the behavior is totally defensible because the other side does it as well.
This coming from the person that (a) was the one that brought up gerrymandering, (b) only mentioned the GOP, and (c) vilified the GOP.
A very consistent thinking process you have. You will slam them publicly when the GOP does it, but you will also make every attempt to avoid saying that the DNC is also doing it.
When confronted with your hypocrisy you shrug it off and again make sure to not directly say that the DNC is also guilty but instead say "the other side."
Intellectual honesty is only intact when its from start to finish. When it isnt from start to finish, you are just a partisan asshole.
"His name was James Damore."
Its selfish to not want to be told by someone else what to do?
It's called civilization. If I want to masturbate in public, or kill people, or be a pedophile, or be a cannibal. Or steal from my neighbors and sell their stuff on ebay, or force my neighbor's wife to have sex with me. I'm not allowed to do those things, It's an infringement upon my freedoms. I am not free to do any of those things without societal repercussions. And I agree with punishments for those things. People should not have the freedom to do those things.
We are a whole lot less "free" than some of us think.
It is the people that think they have an automatic right to tell others what to do that are selfish. This seems to be a common theme in politics today, where a group guilty of something like being selfish, label those that oppose them with what they themselves are actually guilty of.
Read this
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...
Now let's discuss.
Okay, I am certain that washing hands after using the toilet is one of those selfish things that intrude upon freedom. It actually is a restriction. If I have to do something, I am not free from doing exactly as I wish. I am restricted from my freedom to get my coliform bacteria laden shit on people's food. And senator Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) agrees with that.
Do you? Is fundamental freeddom do whatever you feel like doing so sacrosanct that you would be willing to allow your child to die with their internal organs destroyed be a massive e coli infection just so someone doesn't have to wash their hands? Even if we're not in "Think of the Children mode", are you willing to die because an employee enjoys greater freedom to
He is fine with that. And his other bit of batshit crazy supidity was that he supported restaraunts having to put up a sign saying they didn't require employees to wash their hand after a steaming hot crap. if they don't want to require their employees to have to wash their hands.
Which of course is a regulation, and regulations are bad, and it infringes upon the freedoms of the owner of the restaurant. I is the final answer "Eat Shit and die, it's the way of freedom"?
This is the problem when Libertarianism gets married to Fundamentalist Republicanism. We end up making insane statements. Probably very few people want to eat fecal matter. It's been a known disease vector for a long long time. But when you decide that every law and regulation is an assault upon your freedom, and therefore evil, you get stuck in a potatofest of having to support insane ideas like a complete abandonment of basic hygiene, with Two Girls, One Cup notwithstanding.
It is not selfish to want to avoid other peoples tyranny. You dumb fuck.
Meh, Define that tyranny? Is it being required to wash your hands? Is it not allowing you to kill anyone you feel like killing? Not being allowed to have sex with your daughter? All are societal restrictions on your freedom. You would be much more free if you could do any of those things, without society judging or impeding you.
This is where all of the faux libertarian arguments fail. Everything a litmus test, and when hoist by your own petard, you end up having to make up things like requiring employers to put up sighns that only violate your own litmus tests. There is no civilization without restrictions on behavior. The faux libertarian world is nothing more than modern day crypto-anarchy.
And you calling me a "dumb fuck" is just illustrative of every conversation I have with faux libertarians. All insult, no content.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.